What the logic behind not allowing military personal to be armed?

Okay. And? It's a cool story and all but what does that have to do with anything I have said? It's one or two people infiltrating, it's about everyone all at once.

 

You have a vivid imagination, but are not grounded in reality, and know naught of what you speak, and little of Military matters or those that serve.

 

The original point is that military members should be able to defend themselves by carrying personal weapons on base.

Military members are not going to overthrow the government, because there's nothing stopping them from doing it now.

Do you think military members are thinking "I really want to overthrow the government, but (wring hands) I'm not allowed by the government to have my guns there (wailing sound)."

I've worked in and around the military for my entire adult life until 6 months ago, and I can assure you that the idea is preposterous.

 

The OP wanted an answer to a question and I provided one.

What? How did you make that conclusion?

No I don't. Probably most of them are focused on what they need to do. But when the situation arises where people want to overthrow the government, it's a question of time, not ability to do so. The point is to make them take more time distributing the weapons.

Okay, cool. You can think its preposterous but really, what's the only other reason why?

 

I don't have to know anything about the military. I'm not making that argument. I'm making a sociological and historical one. Limit who can have weapons, and keep the soldiers busy. Then government is more stable. Simple as that.

 

Your statements about the Military are not logical or based on facts, if you study U.S. Military History and the Men that served since General Washington, you will find very few incidents of Soldiers conspiring to take over the Government.

Your concerns are unfounded.

 

I can see reasons not to have all in the military armed at all times if not in a combat zone. Stress levels are VERY high in some areas of some branches of the military for a variety of reasons largely due to personnel cuts and rotten ways to cut benefits with discharges. 16 hour+ shifts are common - and in high stress (and high heat) situations. Pressure to perform high risk tasks outside their area of training. For example, when the AF offered 10,000 positions to allow voluntarily shifting from active to reserves - but keeping benefits - they received 120,000 applications. Manpower shortages push those in some areas to the absolute max plus push them into being put into Catch-22 situations of being ordered to perform tasks so the mission can go on - tasks they are technically forbidden to do for their ratings.

Worse, they starting finding any possible excuse to boot people out with "less than honorable discharges" to cut off benefits even for people who had been in for over a decade - as petty as failing a PT testing. 2 were given dishonorable charges because their phones had a song on it that had a pro-legal drug lyric in it. Yet ironically if you just can't handle it anymore you can't just quit either.

Suicide rates are high. Alcoholism is growing and increasing problem with drugs. Fights are growing more common.In short, Obama's slaughter of the military has caused HUGE personnel and moral problems. Plus many to most in the service are not really not in combat roles, but in technical, logistics or support roles who will never be in or near combat.

While it seems like "sure, everyone in the military should be carrying loaded firearms at all times," outside of combat zones I see little reason since they tend to be quite low crime zones by comparison. Military personnel do "crack up" under ujust like everyone else - and unlike other jobs you just quit and walk off. So I can see reasons not to have everyone in the military continually carrying a sidearm or loaded weapon.

 

The argument isn't that everyone in the military should carry a weapon at all times, but rather those that wish to carry a sidearm for self-defense and who take the steps to meet state CCW requirements shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

 

Okay, sure I can concede to that. Why do you think that is? In part its because of things like this. Even then, correct me if I'm wrong but the standard policy for not having weapons on you if you're not authorized to, does that extend to military bases off of US soil?

 

So why not let the soldiers keep their private weapons? Put it one of their personal box if they live in the barracks.

 

I'm talking about personal weapons. A soldier buys a Glock from Bass Pro Shop and carries it concealed. Or alternatively if he wants to open carry he buys a model that is Mil-Spec and carry it according to uniform standards.

 

Unlikely. For one I doubt you can convince that many. For another even if that were to happen what's to stop them from going to the nearest gun store off base and sneaking them in?

And how would you prevent that? I've been to plenty of military bases. My father was in the Air Force. At the gate all they do is ask for your military ID. They don't search the car or you. So sneaking in weapons is quite easy. In fact they don't even have to sneak. If the base is large enough the BX/PX will sell guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Then it'll be investigated.

 

100% absolutely agree with that. Then again I think the more QUALIFIED and CAPABLE responsible people armed in public the safer the public is anyway.

Just this week someone in the military I was talking to said keeping personal firearms in the military (if stationed on base) are a real problem because of 1.) you have to leave them in the armory and while no one is supposed to touch it if you have a fine firearm it's going to likely have been used and dirty next time you see it and 2.) all the different jurisdictions and countries have different laws and rules, making the logistics of personal owned firearms also problematical.

 

Never doubt the power of the military interfering in civilian politics. As for the second part, time. It's about time. Think Shay's Rebellion here. If they don't have the weapons immediately they have to get them first, giving the government forces time to organize a counter.

You think that these things happen over night? They take time. Time that MPs can use investigate people and groups.
- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, exactly. That's how you stop the military from trying to be free of civilian rule.

 

Maybe you should go into the military and clean up all of this "corruption". All I want is for my son to not be a sitting duck while shopping off duty at the BX. Operational portions of the base will be secured by normal means. (Flight lines, armories, nuclear facilities, etc......). Nobody wants the military working on nuclear capable jets with a Keltec in their back pocket.

You have no idea how the military works and your crackpot theories read like a cheap novel. If a military coup is such a threat, why aren't you for civilians being heavily armed if they want to be so?

 

They make the grunts do it and call it a work party.

 

It is my understanding that it was a militia group that brought their own weapons from their own homes. Not only that but they got crushed by Washington. So my question still stands. Not only that but as I said they sell guns on base.

It didn't stopped the Fort Hood shooter.

- - - Updated - - -

So why should the military be disarmed?

 

Perhaps this matter is now on its way to coming to an end.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/troops-concealed-handguns-armed-military-recruiters

 

I forgot about that. I was visiting my son at McConnell AFB and I noticed a gun counter at the BX. It wasn't open at the time, but the prices were good.

 

none that I can think of, depending on the location... just like in court rooms and airplanes for civilians, there may be some places that only security should be armed